When the US chooses terrorism

IS was created by lack of justice, dignity and governance. Instead of tackling these root issues, the US chose to target the outcomes through brutal terrorism to maintain its hegemonic power structure in the region.

Read more!

This was the
famous sentence used by Obama in his speech at the United Nations – quoting the
prominent Muslim Scholar Bin Bayyah - to justify renewed American intervention
in the Middle East.

However this quote
is far from reality, as the outcome desired by the US is nothing related to
peace. While the US rallies the international community to form a coalition to target
terrorism in Iraq and Syria, represented by the Islamic State (IS), Jabhat
Al-Nusra or even the American discovery, Khorasan group, it is apparent that
the main target is to preserve the hegemonic American structure in the Middle
East.

The
recent American intervention started when IS stunned the world transforming
itself from a radical militant group, active in Syria (where there are plenty of militant
groups) and in Iraq, to a functional body controlling vast areas in both
countries, but most importantly threatening the US dominated power structure in
the region.

American
airstrikes started promptly when IS threatened the Kurdish Regional Government,
where the Peshmerga proved inefficient in stopping the persistent march of IS. The
US claims that its intervention was mainly to save the Yezidis minority from an
imminent genocide by IS.

For over
three years, the US silently witnessed a continuous massacre committed by
Assad’s regime against its own people. Assad’s
regime, despite not being as pro-American as the Kurdish one, nor Israeli
friendly like many other regimes in the region, still plays an important role in
the hegemonic structure of the region, for which the US has no alternative.

Despite
all the horrific atrocities his regime committed, Assad proved to be making more noise
than posing an actual threat to the US regionally. This also explains the
American rejection of the Turkish proposal to include the Assad regime as a
part of a grand strategy to eliminate terrorism and the environment that
creates it.

While
the US airstrikes proved effective in halting the IS march towards Erbil in
Iraqi Kurdistan, it let the Syrian town of Kobane become a field of mini-Stalingrad style confrontation between IS and the PKK-affiliated YPG.
The target was to blackmail Turkey to intervene in the fight and be part of the
American strategy to destroy and degrade IS.

While
many in the world were crying for Kobane and blaming Turkey for allegedly
allowing the barbarians to encroach on the city, nobody seems to care about the hell
unleashed by Assad's jets throwing barrel bombs on Aleppo, Daraa or Hama.

'Syria
has many Kobanis. What will happen to Aleppo, Latakia, Turkmen and other people
after Kobane is saved?'

This question was asked by the Turkish President
Erdogan and remains unanswered, as the US along with its coalition restricted
the fight to what threatens the rulers of the Erbil, Damascus or Baghdad regimes
and not what threatens the people.

Nobody
questioned the US polices that support Maliki and turned a blind eye to his
repressive sectarian practices, qualifying him for the “Shiite Saddam” title
for practices that led to the alienation of Sunni Muslims, leaving them to
choose between the sectarian Iraqi army and ISIS militia men.

IS
was created by lack of justice, dignity and governance. Instead of tackling
these root issues, the US chose to target the outcomes through brutal terrorism
to maintain its hegemonic power structure in the region.

Contrary
to what many observers believe, the US is completely aware of this complex
situation which is not just limited to Syria and Iraq, but to the whole region.

In
Egypt, the US favored the continuity of the Mubarak regime, even without
Mubarak himself. Despite some diplomatic condemnations, it seems that
Washington is welcoming the obliteration of hope for Egyptian democracy by
installing a military-backed government through a coup.

While
Egyptian university students demonstrating for freedom were being shot, Kerry
was posing with the same security forces responsible and endorsing Egypt’s
transition to democracy under the rule of the army generals. The same can be
seen in Palestine, Yemen and Libya.

With
growing instability in the Middle East, it is clear that the favorable
conditions for terrorism will continue, especially if we add the term “state
terrorism” to the vague definition of terrorism that revolves around threats to western interests.

However,
the US’ favored choice of using military tactics and airstrikes to face
violence, and terrorism to maintain its hegemonic power structure in the region
at whatever price, proves that there is no value for the lives of thousands of
innocent civilians.

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.